4.7 Article

Randomized trial of preladenant, given as monotherapy, in patients with early Parkinson disease

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 23, Pages 2198-2206

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the adenosine 2a receptor antagonist preladenant as a nondopaminergic drug for the treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) when given as monotherapy. Methods: This was a randomized, 26-week, placebo-and active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center, double-blind trial conducted in adults diagnosed with PD for <5 years who were not yet receiving L-dopa or dopamine agonists. Patients with a Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part 3 (motor function) score >10 and Hoehn & Yahr score <3 were randomized 1: 1: 1: 1: 1 to preladenant 2, 5, or 10 mg twice daily, rasagiline 1 mg (active-control) once daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline at week 26 in the sum of UPDRS parts 2 (activities of daily living) and 3 scores (UPDRS2+3). Results: The number of patients treated was 1,007. Neither preladenant nor rasagiline was superior to placebo after 26 weeks. The differences vs placebo (95% confidence interval) in UP-DRS2+3 scores (with a negative difference indicating improvement vs placebo) were preladenant 2 mg = 2.60 (0.86, 4.30), preladenant 5 mg = 1.30 (-0.41, 2.94), preladenant 10 mg = 0.40 (-1.29, 2.11), and rasagiline 1 mg = 0.30 (-1.35, 2.03). Post hoc analyses did not identify a single causal factor that could explain the finding of a failed trial. Preladenant was generally well-tolerated with few patients discontinuing due to adverse events (preladenant 7%, rasagiline 3%, placebo 4%). Conclusions: No evidence supporting the efficacy of preladenant as monotherapy was observed in this phase 3 trial. The lack of efficacy of the active control rasagiline makes it difficult to interpret the results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available